Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26992068›Full record

Observational studyCritical care medicine2016

Using Supervised Machine Learning to Classify Real Alerts and Artifact in Online Multisignal Vital Sign Monitoring Data.

Lujie Chen, Artur Dubrawski, Donghan Wang, Madalina Fiterau, Mathieu Guillame-Bert, Eliezer Bose, Ata M Kaynar, David J Wallace, Jane Guttendorf, Gilles Clermont and 2 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Critical care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Weakly Supervised Classification of Vital Sign Alerts as Real or Artifact.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Using Machine Learning to Support Transfer of Best Practices in Healthcare.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Lujie Chen1Auton Lab, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. 2Department of Acute and Tertiary Care, University of Pittsburgh Schools of Nursing, Pittsburgh, PA. 3Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Schools of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Artur Dubrawski
Donghan Wang
Madalina Fiterau
Mathieu Guillame-Bert
Eliezer Bose
Ata M Kaynar
David J Wallace
Jane Guttendorf
Gilles Clermont
Michael R Pinsky
Marilyn Hravnak

Funding

Predicting Patient Instability Noninvasively for Nursing Care-Two (PPINNC-2)R01NR013912 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI AL-ZAITI, SALAH S, CLERMONT, GILLES · 2012 to 2025
$7.0M
Understanding Regional Critical Care Delivery in Acute Respiratory FailureK08HL122478 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WALLACE, DAVID JOHN · 2015 to 2018
$606k
NHLBI NIH HHS K08 HL122478NINR NIH HHS R01 NR013912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe use of machine-learning algorithms to classify alerts as real or artifacts in online noninvasive vital sign data streams to reduce alarm fatigue and missed true instability.

designObservational cohort study.

settingTwenty-four-bed trauma step-down unit. PATIENTS: Two thousand one hundred fifty-three patients.

interventionNoninvasive vital sign monitoring data (heart rate, respiratory rate, peripheral oximetry) recorded on all admissions at 1/20 Hz, and noninvasive blood pressure less frequently, and partitioned data into training/validation (294 admissions; 22,980 monitoring hours) and test sets (2,057 admissions; 156,177 monitoring hours). Alerts were vital sign deviations beyond stability thresholds. A four-member expert committee annotated a subset of alerts (576 in training/validation set, 397 in test set) as real or artifact selected by active learning, upon which we trained machine-learning algorithms. The best model was evaluated on test set alerts to enact online alert classification over time. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsThe Random Forest model discriminated between real and artifact as the alerts evolved online in the test set with area under the curve performance of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.67-0.93) for peripheral oximetry at the instant the vital sign first crossed threshold and increased to 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-0.95) at 3 minutes into the alerting period. Blood pressure area under the curve started at 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64-0.95) and increased to 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-0.98), whereas respiratory rate area under the curve started at 0.85 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95) and increased to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-1.00). Heart rate alerts were too few for model development.

conclusionsMachine-learning models can discern clinically relevant peripheral oximetry, blood pressure, and respiratory rate alerts from artifacts in an online monitoring dataset (area under the curve > 0.87).

Indexed as

ArtifactsSupervised Machine LearningVital SignsBlood Pressure DeterminationClinical AlarmsCohort StudiesHeart RateHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicOximetryRespiratory Rate

Identifiers

PMID26992068
PMCPMC4911247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.